Arguments contra neo-conservatism

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thinkandmull

Guest
I recently thought of some arguments about the whole issue of capitalism. Hard work seems to be something that people should be awarded for; uneven taxes thus seem unfair. However, talent is God-given and isn’t it possible that these are for the community as much as they are given for the individual? Also, we live in society. Soldiers die to protect us, but does that give them the right to own everything we have? No, its a community, and thus sharing is justice. Certain ancient civilazations probably understood this better, but many Americans don’t get it. Will people not work hard for anyone except themselves? Well, it probably depends on where you live. I don’t think you can just say govermnet vs. business. Those are abstract things. It is the PEOPLE in them that matter and it depends who you feel is the most reliable to put trust in. You can’t say “government never works” because each government is different; different people each time ruling over a different set of people each time.
 
A good example of people working harder for themselves can be found in the history of Lenin’s New Economic Policy that allowed for individuals to work their own plots of land as long as they worked at the collectives also. More produce came from the individual plots proportionally to that coming from the collectives.
Catholic morality allows us to own and protect personal property. However, many Popes have spoken out about the abuses of rampant capitalism. There is a via media we must all find in our own lives that allow us to feed and cloth our family to the standards of our community whilst maintaining a love and succour for the poor.
 
What’s the flip side? Neo-liberalism? If so, that practice has only yielded the largest population of non-producers in recorded history.

Rather, check out the truly Catholic-friendly economic theory of Distributism. From the Wiki:
“Distributism (also known as distributionism[1] or distributivism[2]) is an economic ideology that developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching, especially the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum Novarum and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno.”
Click to expand...
Rather than the state being God, or money being God, it strives to allow God to be God. What a concept!
 
But how do we get to widespread property ownership? THAT is the question. How large, and from where, must the revolution be and come. Rerum Novorum says “sufficient wages” which means that if someone’s job is not worth enough to pay him enough to pay for his family’s needs, the employer is against justice unless he pulls from his own pocket? And if he won’t? Well, isn’t it the governments job to provide for justice and finances? “Common and government property ownership was expressly dismissed as a means of helping the poor” But if the government controls the money as in the example I gave, then we are back to neo-liberalism. Who is to decide if the father of the family is being lazy, or if capitalists aren’t really hard working but lucky? The principles are few, vague and basic. It essentially boils down to whom you trust to provide what and run yada-yada… 🤷
 
When Rerum Novarum was written, the world was a much different place. Although the principles in it remain true, the world’s economic and societal realities have changed. In the industrialized US, corporate greed has been joined by union greed. As the pendulum of power swung, the family structure was challenged, societal norms were rapidly altered, and the exponential expansion of government power and influence in daily life all conspired to impose a tax burden upon the entire property-owing class. As we see today, the recent economic difficulties have resulted in the relative loss of property ownership in the US.

Complicating this, is the fact that we have a national economy which is now inseparable from (and subject to) the greater world economy. Attempts at legislative correction have less effect, inasmuch as they are substantially moderated by the greater influence of a world economy. Within national borders in developed nations, the lowering of regulation and taxation are key to stimulating property ownership, but this is not the cultural/regulatory trend in a nation which increasingly seeks government guarantees of nearly everything.

With the US declining morally as it declines productively, the wealth formerly generated within her borders is transferred elsewhere. Lacking revolutionary change, this seems to portend a declining and rather bleak future.
 
Just a thought-- there is a difference between capitalism and cronyism. The US currently embraces cronyism, not capitalism.

Capitalism at it’s heart is about individual responsibility. Making decisions, taking risks, and then accepting the consequences of the decisions. The problem today is that corporations take risks and then are insulated from the consequences by their government cronies. The risk is socialized, while the reward (if any) remains with the cronies. Had the banks and GM been allowed to fail, those people who’d taken the risks would have lost a fortune and been unemployable. Instead, they were rewarded – they successfully transferred the costs to the government (i.e. the taxpayer), kept their jobs and were even seen as successes from the shareholder view. They got the government to step in and save the companies.

ETA: The thing that strikes me as odd is the way some want to blame the folks running the corporations, others want to blame the politicians/government. But it’s a cooperative effort-- they are both to blame. Perhaps the politicians a bit more since they’re paid to look out for the interest of everyone. But it does take both the politicians and heads of the corporations, I can’t just blame one side of the equation they’re both to blame.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top